RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the recall of bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the High Court could legally set aside a bail order without proper personal service of notice upon the petitioner, thereby condemning him unheard. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that service of notice upon the petitioner's brother does not constitute valid service under the law and that the petitioner was indeed condemned unheard when his bail was recalled without a proper hearing. The Court laid down the principle that an accused person must be duly and personally served with notice before any order to the petitioner's detriment, such as the cancellation of bail, can be legally passed by a superior court. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted.
- Whether service of notice upon the brother of an accused constitutes valid service of notice for the cancellation of bail?
- Can a High Court legally recall a bail order without providing a proper hearing to the accused?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---It is submitted by the learned counsel that bail was allowed to the petitioner, Riaz Ahmad Khan by the trial Court vide its order dated 19-6-1997 in the case having been registered against him under section 337-A(ii)(iii)/336/34, P.P.C. However, the said order granting bail to the petitioner was recalled by the High Court on 26-11-1997. It has been mentioned in the order of the High Court that notice issued to the petitioner was received by his brother.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not served with notice and as such, he was condemned unheard. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel. In our view, the service of the petitioner through his brother is not warranted by law. It is, therefore, established that the petitioner was not heard before the bail order was set aside by the High Court. In this view of the matter, the ad-interim bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order of this Court dated 28-1- 1998 is hereby confirmed. This petition is, accordingly, converted into appeal and allowed.